What should universities do about books, phrases, and speakers that some students find upsetting?

In the last three years, students at many American universities have initiated movements to:
Continue reading...
1) Place “trigger warnings” on books and articles assigned for classes to warn students about potentially upsetting content (such as racism or sexual violence).

2) Identify and discourage “micro aggressions,” which are words and phrases that can make some students feel excluded or insulted.

3) Rescind invitations to some speakers, if the content of their talk is likely to distress some students.

I wrote an article on these trends (with Greg Lukianoff) which was published yesterday in The Atlantic. We argue that these 3 movements are not just infringements on free speech; they are actually bad for the students themselves, for they teach students to think in exactly the kinds of distorted ways that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy tries to correct.

Many critics of the article say that we did not take sufficient account of the suffering and exclusion that some students feel.

So the question I’d like to raise is: are there ways to promote a culture of inclusion on college campuses that don’t involve moralistic, divisive, and speech-limiting responses like the 3 I mentioned? Are there better ways to accomplish the goals that drive the three movements?